The Aldrich Alert
Gary Aldrich

A Publication of
the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty

Is It Safe?

November 8, 2002

If you could conduct a survey of current and former federal employees,
I'm certain you'd find that they agree on one thing: There is too much
"deadwood" in the ranks of the federal employees.

President Bush tried to get rid of lazy, burned out, incompetent, uncaring
or corrupt federal employees when he set about to establish a Homeland
Security Department, but he met solid resistance from leftist union-loving
Democrats who claim that if Bush can hire, fire or promote federal employees
on merit alone, we'll be "headed back to the bad old days."

Most of us are realistic enough to realize that these are the bad old
days.

So far, September 11, 2001, was the worst of the bad old days, and many
mistakes leading up to that date were made by employees who were hired,
and oftentimes promoted, for all the wrong reasons. But worse days are
headed our way if the dire predictions of numerous intelligence experts
are to be believed.

A combination of affirmative action programs, driven by hiring quotas,
along with the installation of rigid, politically correct "management,"
guarantees mediocre federal employee performance. Moreover, these conditions
are so well known that few are brave enough to argue against this claim.

They know all evidence points in the opposite direction, and yet, Democrats
fight to protect the status quo. Why?

In times of peace, such a social experiment in our federal government
- really a luxury - might be tolerable. In time of war, who can justify
it? Would we use these same lax rules to staff our hospital operating
rooms? Would we force commercial airlines to hire pilots because of the
color of their skin, their national origin, their religion or their gender
and ignore ability and skill in favor of some warm, fuzzy feeling brought
about by hiring a favored minority applicant to meet a hiring quota?

When they failed to meet minimal expectations, would we find creative
ways to keep them employed in order to avoid criticism or lawsuits?

Many statistics support my position. It was recently reported that while
more than 80,000 federal employees were found to be performing at an unacceptable
level, only a few hundred could actually be fired. When a career in the
federal government can be as long as 40 years, one can readily see how
"deadwood" accumulates.

In these dangerous days, too much "deadwood" can result in
many dead citizens!

Those of us who have worked in the federal agencies can testify to the
many high performing, outstanding minority employees who were hired because
of their own accomplishments. To hire and keep less than qualified persons
to meet a quota is not only dangerous and wasteful, but it's an insult
to the minorities who have risen up through the ranks with ability and
good old-fashioned hard work. I believe they would be the first to complain,
if only they could! Everyone knows that whistleblowers are punished by
their own agencies, so don't expect too many to come forward today.

Ironically, one recent example of political abuse was masterminded by
Democrats Hillary Clinton, now a U.S. senator, and her husband, the president.
They not only publicly humiliated and fired White House Travel manager
Billy Dale - who had served many presidents - and his entire staff, but
they called in the FBI and IRS to harass them!

Today there are many laws on the books that allow abused federal employees
recourse through the civil courts. In aggravated cases, criminal laws
can apply. To say there are not enough protections for federal employees
is an outright lie. Not only are there enough protections, but there are
also the media and whistleblower protection groups to call attention to
abuse, if it's legitimate.

I would submit that instead of hobbling the entire executive branch with
arcane and useless "protections" for do-nothing federal employees,
Democrats might take a lesson from Republican leaders who know not only
how to maintain high morale, but also how to generate hard work and loyalty
from their staff.

It's widely reported that when Bill and Hillary Clinton finally left
the White House, White House staff - who are among the federal employees
that I'm talking about - cried with joy! That joy continued when George
W. Bush and Laura, along with former President Bush and Barbara, walked
back into the White House on January 20, 2001.

And as of today, Democrats are in charge of the U.S. Senate. They have
formed a "blockade" to stop Bush from returning excellence to
the federal ranks. Will that circumstance change tomorrow? Well, if the
American voters know how their precious votes translate into a better
quality of federal government employee, which in turn guarantees a safer
nation because of better national security programs - then we should see
a different political landscape tomorrow. If not, learn how to duck and
cover!

I know that many federal workers visit the website where this article
will be posted, so, tell me what you think. Do you think that my friends
and I are correct in alleging that the federal workforce is riddled with
incompetence and ought to be overhauled?

Or do you think the feds and their agencies are as good as they can ever
be?

If you are a current or former federal employee, I would like you to
send an e-mail telling me whether you think I'm right or wrong. Cite examples,
and in a future column I'll give a report about what I've been told.

This is my prediction: If the Democrats maintain control of the U.S.
Senate, get used to living in dangerous times.